I personally believe there is no case against Ben. It has been 11 days since the incident and no charges have been filed against Ben. If they had solid evidence against Ben you can bet charges would have been filed already. If I were Benís lawyer I would not allow Ben to speak/interview with law enforcement regarding this.

LordVile

03-16-2010, 06:48 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5001162

I personally believe there is no case against Ben. It has been 11 days since the incident and no charges have been filed against Ben. If they had solid evidence against Ben you can bet charges would have been filed already. If I were Benís lawyer I would not allow Ben to speak/interview with law enforcement regarding this.

DITTO, I hope it pans out this way.

snarky

03-16-2010, 07:23 PM

I wouldn't get too excited over 11 days. If you look at this article you'll see that average turnaround time varies by state but in general is 90 days or more. Georgia is not specifically mentioned but given that this is a high-profile case, I would think the state is going to take the necessary time to cross T's and dot I's.

I wouldn't get too excited over 11 days. If you look at this article you'll see that average turnaround time varies by state but in general is 90 day more. Georgia is not specifically mentioned but given that this is a high-profile case, I would think the state is going to take the necessary time to cross T's and dot I's.

But in a case where sexual assault is alleged if there isnít any physical evidence, then it boils down to her word against his. Remember this, the authorities have all the video tape from the club where the incident supposedly occurred. They also have a club full of possible witnesses. And to this point they have absolutely nothing..and if they did..even a little evidence..they would have filed charges. That town...that area.. is starving for an economical boost. A trail/case of this magnitude would bring that. But they donít have anything. This is not rape. It is sexual assault. That in itself leaves limited physical evidence.

Do you know why Ben's lawyer keeps saying Ben hasnít committed a crime? Very simple...because whether he did or didnít...there is no evidence that he did..nor is there any way for the authorities to prove he did.

Discipline of Steel

03-16-2010, 07:52 PM

Too early to get excited.

snarky

03-16-2010, 08:01 PM

I wouldn't get too excited over 11 days. If you look at this article you'll see that average turnaround time varies by state but in general is 90 day more. Georgia is not specifically mentioned but given that this is a high-profile case, I would think the state is going to take the necessary time to cross T's and dot I's.

But in a case where sexual assault is alleged if there isnít any physical evidence, then it boils down to her word against his. Remember this, the authorities have all the video tape from the club where the incident supposedly occurred. They also have a club full of possible witnesses. And to this point they have absolutely nothing..and if they did..even a little evidence..they would have filed charges. That town...that area.. is starving for an economical boost. A trail/case of this magnitude would bring that. But they donít have anything. This is not rape. It is sexual assault. That in itself leaves limited physical evidence.

Do you know why Ben's lawyer keeps saying Ben hasnít committed a crime? Very simple...because whether he did or didnít...there is no evidence that he did..nor is there any way for the authorities to prove he did.

Absolute proof is not required to convict a defendant. There are many people who are sent to jail without absolute proof. Here is a little thought experiment. Say this goes to trial and the only evidence is her testimony. She says he committed this act. Now say for whatever reason (again this is just a thought experiment) Ben's defense does nothing, they just let the jury take it from there. Has the state "proven" that he committed the crime? No. Is the state likely to get a conviction when the jury returns a verdict? Yes.

And I'm pretty sure every defense attorney in history would say his client is not guility when asked.

EDIT: I also meant to say that even though this is not a rape case, there is a rape kit that was done on her that night. I think it is safe to say there will be no charges against Ben until that kit is processed. Here's why. Imagine if Ben was charged and then suspended by the league based on that charge and he lost out on a few million dollars in salary and endorsements. Then imagine the kit comes back in such a way that Ben is exonerated. Do you think Ben would sue the state/county?

SanAntonioSteelerFan

03-16-2010, 09:30 PM

I wouldn't get too excited over 11 days. If you look at this article you'll see that average turnaround time varies by state but in general is 90 day more. Georgia is not specifically mentioned but given that this is a high-profile case, I would think the state is going to take the necessary time to cross T's and dot I's.

But in a case where sexual assault is alleged if there isnít any physical evidence, then it boils down to her word against his. Remember this, the authorities have all the video tape from the club where the incident supposedly occurred. They also have a club full of possible witnesses. And to this point they have absolutely nothing..and if they did..even a little evidence..they would have filed charges. That town...that area.. is starving for an economical boost. A trail/case of this magnitude would bring that. But they donít have anything. This is not rape. It is sexual assault. That in itself leaves limited physical evidence.

Do you know why Ben's lawyer keeps saying Ben hasnít committed a crime? Very simple...because whether he did or didnít...there is no evidence that he did..nor is there any way for the authorities to prove he did.

Absolute proof is not required to convict a defendant. There are many people who are sent to jail without absolute proof. Here is a little thought experiment. Say this goes to trial and the only evidence is her testimony. She says he committed this act. Now say for whatever reason (again this is just a thought experiment) Ben's defense does nothing, they just let the jury take it from there. Has the state "proven" that he committed the crime? No. Is the state likely to get a conviction when the jury returns a verdict? Yes.

And I'm pretty sure every defense attorney in history would say his client is not guility when asked.

EDIT: I also meant to say that even though this is not a rape case, there is a rape kit that was done on her that night. I think it is safe to say there will be no charges against Ben until that kit is processed. Here's why. Imagine if Ben was charged and then suspended by the league based on that charge and he lost out on a few million dollars in salary and endorsements. Then imagine the kit comes back in such a way that Ben is exonerated. Do you think Ben would sue the state/county?
How long can this take? Don't you just take them to the bathroom and watch them turn blue or something? :D

Discipline of Steel

03-16-2010, 10:28 PM

I wouldn't get too excited over 11 days. If you look at this article you'll see that average turnaround time varies by state but in general is 90 day more. Georgia is not specifically mentioned but given that this is a high-profile case, I would think the state is going to take the necessary time to cross T's and dot I's.

But in a case where sexual assault is alleged if there isnít any physical evidence, then it boils down to her word against his. Remember this, the authorities have all the video tape from the club where the incident supposedly occurred. They also have a club full of possible witnesses. And to this point they have absolutely nothing..and if they did..even a little evidence..they would have filed charges. That town...that area.. is starving for an economical boost. A trail/case of this magnitude would bring that. But they donít have anything. This is not rape. It is sexual assault. That in itself leaves limited physical evidence.

Do you know why Ben's lawyer keeps saying Ben hasnít committed a crime? Very simple...because whether he did or didnít...there is no evidence that he did..nor is there any way for the authorities to prove he did.

Absolute proof is not required to convict a defendant. There are many people who are sent to jail without absolute proof. Here is a little thought experiment. Say this goes to trial and the only evidence is her testimony. She says he committed this act. Now say for whatever reason (again this is just a thought experiment) Ben's defense does nothing, they just let the jury take it from there. Has the state "proven" that he committed the crime? No. Is the state likely to get a conviction when the jury returns a verdict? Yes.

And I'm pretty sure every defense attorney in history would say his client is not guility when asked.

EDIT: I also meant to say that even though this is not a rape case, there is a rape kit that was done on her that night. I think it is safe to say there will be no charges against Ben until that kit is processed. Here's why. Imagine if Ben was charged and then suspended by the league based on that charge and he lost out on a few million dollars in salary and endorsements. Then imagine the kit comes back in such a way that Ben is exonerated. Do you think Ben would sue the state/county?
How long can this take? Don't you just take them to the bathroom and watch them turn blue or something? :D

Rape Kits are multi-faceted. Obviously there are the two swabs for serological evidence, a paper bag for certain clothing, a comb for pubes, high-res photos of any injuries, dust for fingerprints...probably takes a couple weeks to process it all in the lab. Arent you glad you asked? :P

Shawn

03-17-2010, 12:24 AM

It really depends. With a high profile case I would imagine that this case and that rape kit were kicked to the top of the pile. DNA testing does not take that long to perform. With that said, according to Ben there was no intercourse. If that is true, what will they find? Likely nothing. Then there is the physical exam. The ER doc will look for vaginal tears, rectal tears, bruising, lacerations, abrasions etc. The ER docs physical exam would be more important. That will be the cornerstone of their case. For instance, if there are bruises lets say on her arms...possibly hand shaped...that can show force. Good luck to Ben trying to explain that. I don't believe Ben submitted to a physical exam...which in my mind should have been done. Scratches on Ben would have been telling.

But, I suspect the only thing that will come back is a knot on her head and a story about a girl who knowingly went into a bathroom with a superstar Qb. She will tell her story...Ben will tell his. The only physical evidence the prosecutor will likely have is a knot on the head of the alleged victim. That won't be enough on any planet to convict Ben. My prediction is that this will only be a civil issue when all is said and done due to a lack of physical evidence.

SteelAbility

03-17-2010, 08:42 AM

It really depends. With a high profile case I would imagine that this case and that rape kit were kicked to the top of the pile. DNA testing does not take that long to perform. With that said, according to Ben there was no intercourse. If that is true, what will they find? Likely nothing. Then there is the physical exam. The ER doc will look for vaginal tears, rectal tears, bruising, lacerations, abrasions etc. The ER docs physical exam would be more important. That will be the cornerstone of their case. For instance, if there are bruises lets say on her arms...possibly hand shaped...that can show force. Good luck to Ben trying to explain that. I don't believe Ben submitted to a physical exam...which in my mind should have been done. Scratches on Ben would have been telling.

But, I suspect the only thing that will come back is a knot on her head and a story about a girl who knowingly went into a bathroom with a superstar Qb. She will tell her story...Ben will tell his. The only physical evidence the prosecutor will likely have is a knot on the head of the alleged victim. That won't be enough on any planet to convict Ben. My prediction is that this will only be a civil issue when all is said and done due to a lack of physical evidence.

That's probably it right there. The burden of proof is much heavier in criminal cases.

Dee Dub

03-17-2010, 11:25 AM

We all know Ben was at the club. Whatever rape kit was used was used to fit this particular charge---sexual assault. That means no vagina swab can be used or is admissible. This isnít rape it is sexual assault. That means that the alleged victim is admitting that there was no sexual intercourse. This leaves us with the fact that any and all evidence that is on the victimís body or in the clubs bathroom can only imply that Ben was there. A simple strand of Benís hair could have fallen onto the floor or onto the victims shoulder after a polite hug or hand shake. This is called circumstantial evidence. Is the evidence a sample of Benís sperm? If it is that does not prove Ben assaulted this woman. Ben could have simply masturbated on his own in the clubís bathroom. Without a witness or any video evidence, there is absolutely no way the prosecution can prove any sexual assault. They have no case. And this is why there are no charges. What they have been waiting for all this time is that a witness could come forward or Ben would somehow implicate himself.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

Northern_Blitz

03-17-2010, 12:20 PM

I remember reading an article recently that said that the small town law enforcement team was working on this high profile case, as well as a murder. They said that there was no timeline to bring charges up.

Not having charges yet beats having charges, but I don't think it means too much yet.

Shawn

03-17-2010, 02:50 PM

An ER nurse with 10+ years of ER experience was discussing rape exams. Keep in mind this was a female nurse who has seen hundreds of alleged rapes and assisted with hundreds of alleged rape exams. She stated, "she has seen one maybe two legit rape cases in her years in the emergency room". I think the general public underestimates the amount of truly sick people we have in our society.

_SteeL_CurtaiN_

03-17-2010, 03:16 PM

I think the general public underestimates the amount of truly sick people we have in our society.

I agree with this statement and given that 11 days has passed without charges IMO is telling. This case is being processed with the utmost expedience and the fact that it's almost two weeks since the incident makes me suspect the prosecution is A) Has a weak case and B). Are protecting their rear ends.

If there were evidence to arrest and charge they would have done it, perhaps they are building their case with circumstantial evidence. Convictions won based on circumstantial evidence must have a higher rate of overturn on appeal wouldn't you think?

This is smelling more and more like a gold digg...

Shawn

03-17-2010, 04:57 PM

I think the general public underestimates the amount of truly sick people we have in our society.

I agree with this statement and given that 11 days has passed without charges IMO is telling. This case is being processed with the utmost expedience and the fact that it's almost two weeks since the incident makes me suspect the prosecution is A) Has a weak case and B). Are protecting their rear ends.

If there were evidence to arrest and charge they would have done it, perhaps they are building their case with circumstantial evidence. Convictions won based on circumstantial evidence must have a higher rate of overturn on appeal wouldn't you think?

This is smelling more and more like a gold digg...

I think A and B are the case. And I agree they don't have squat or they would have charged Ben already. The time that has elapsed tells me they don't have that slam dunk piece of evidence. This is good for Ben obviously as it would certainly take more time to build a circumstantial case.

And lets not forget...as blood thirsty as prosecutors can get...they don't want to lose with the national spotlight on them. Even if they have nothing but the girl's testimony...they will drag this out. Reason? So, they can say they turned over every stone.

BlackJackGold

03-17-2010, 05:48 PM

First, the term 'sexual assault' in Georgia covers everything from groping to rape.

Second, there was some DNA found during the medical examination, otherwise investigators wouldn't want a sample from ben to make a comparison.

Third, I wouldn't be surprised if the investigation is placed before a grand jury for indictment.

That would leave the state of Georgia in the free and clear of being sued should they prosecute and lose.

Shawn

03-17-2010, 06:51 PM

First, the term 'sexual assault' in Georgia covers everything from groping to rape.

Second, there was some DNA found during the medical examination, otherwise investigators wouldn't want a sample from ben to make a comparison.

Third, I wouldn't be surprised if the investigation is placed before a grand jury for indictment.

That would leave the state of Georgia in the free and clear of being sued should they prosecute and lose.

Really? I was under the impression that they also took DNA from the bathroom. I would certainly think there would be multiple people in that bathroom that they would need to sort through. I also thought asking for DNA was standard procedure in cases like these.

TallyStiller

03-17-2010, 07:56 PM

My personal gut feeling, for what it's worth, is that she went into the bathroom with him and he treated her like a porn star... she felt dirty and disgusted, as most 20 year old college kids from Milledgeville, Georgia would in the situation, had buyers' remorse, if you will, and went to the police.

Frankly, Tiger Woods got away with similar behavior, Kobe Bryant very nearly did not... the difference is in the girl you approach and how SHE feels about the encounter, regardless of how famous you are, how often you're on TV, how much bank you have, or how colossal your ego is.

Moral of the story - make sure the girl IS a porn star before you treat her like a porn star. Even if what happened there never results in a conviction, Ben's going to have to learn this real fast or his career, his reputation, and his earning power are going to go from "in serious jeopardy" to "gone".

Shawn

03-17-2010, 08:21 PM

My personal gut feeling, for what it's worth, is that she went into the bathroom with him and he treated her like a porn star... she felt dirty and disgusted, as most 20 year old college kids from Milledgeville, Georgia would in the situation, had buyers' remorse, if you will, and went to the police.

Frankly, Tiger Woods got away with similar behavior, Kobe Bryant very nearly did not... the difference is in the girl you approach and how SHE feels about the encounter, regardless of how famous you are, how often you're on TV, how much bank you have, or how colossal your ego is.

Moral of the story - make sure the girl IS a porn star before you treat her like a porn star. Even if what happened there never results in a conviction, Ben's going to have to learn this real fast or his career, his reputation, and his earning power are going to go from "in serious jeopardy" to "gone".

I think that's reasonable. Did she go into the bathroom to have some sort of sexual contact? That is probable. I can't imagine any other reason to do so. So, with that in mind what happened to make her go to the police? Did he disrespect her? Was she setting him up? Is it possible she was giving him a hummer and instead of pulling out he forced her to swallow? Shoot...the possibilities are endless. Some of these things are just acsholish and some possibilities are criminal. The problem? The jury must assume she went in the bathroom to have sexual contact of some sort. She would have a hard time explaining that away. Then she would have to say he took it further than she wished...which is certainly possible. But, proving that is nearly impossible without physical evidence. Even if there was an immediate ruckus and even if she left crying...it's still hard to prove especially if Ben has an equally believeable story.

Northern_Blitz

03-17-2010, 10:34 PM

I think that's reasonable. Did she go into the bathroom to have some sort of sexual contact? That is probable. ... The problem? The jury must assume she went in the bathroom to have sexual contact of some sort. She would have a hard time explaining that away. Then she would have to say he took it further than she wished...which is certainly possible. But, proving that is nearly impossible without physical evidence.

To me, this sounds alot like a description of the Tyson case. She went up to his hotel room, clearly with the intent of having sex. Tyson was found guilty, in part because she had brusing on her private parts and that was seen as evidence of rape.

Apparently, the girl in this case went into the bathroom with Ben, clearly intending to have some kind of sexual contact. Later that night, she apparently had some sort of head injury.

Shawn

03-17-2010, 11:54 PM

I think that's reasonable. Did she go into the bathroom to have some sort of sexual contact? That is probable. ... The problem? The jury must assume she went in the bathroom to have sexual contact of some sort. She would have a hard time explaining that away. Then she would have to say he took it further than she wished...which is certainly possible. But, proving that is nearly impossible without physical evidence.

To me, this sounds alot like a description of the Tyson case. She went up to his hotel room, clearly with the intent of having sex. Tyson was found guilty, in part because she had brusing on her private parts and that was seen as evidence of rape.

Apparently, the girl in this case went into the bathroom with Ben, clearly intending to have some kind of sexual contact. Later that night, she apparently had some sort of head injury.

I see your point. I would love to know all the details of the Tyson case...because it's hard for me to believe they convicted on a story and some bruises. But, if the ER doc said the bruises appeared to be hand prints...or bruising consistant with a struggle...then yeah I can see how that would be enough. But, a bump to the head is much different. If there is only a bump to the head that could have happened any number of ways. That alone is far from enough. But, bruising on certain parts of body...hands, legs, around the neck is much harder to explain. That's why I maintain that the docs physical is crucial. And if they would have found markings consistant with a struggle...Ben would already be arrested.

feltdizz

03-18-2010, 12:25 AM

After the Duke case a DA would be stupid to rush the case.

It doesn't matter though.. the damage is done and even if the case doesn't go any further people will think Ben paid her off.

I hope this wakes Ben up and he realizes having spontaneous sexual encounters with strangers in public OR in private can land him in a heap of trouble.

Northern_Blitz

03-19-2010, 08:20 PM

I think that's reasonable. Did she go into the bathroom to have some sort of sexual contact? That is probable. ... The problem? The jury must assume she went in the bathroom to have sexual contact of some sort. She would have a hard time explaining that away. Then she would have to say he took it further than she wished...which is certainly possible. But, proving that is nearly impossible without physical evidence.

To me, this sounds alot like a description of the Tyson case. She went up to his hotel room, clearly with the intent of having sex. Tyson was found guilty, in part because she had brusing on her private parts and that was seen as evidence of rape.

Apparently, the girl in this case went into the bathroom with Ben, clearly intending to have some kind of sexual contact. Later that night, she apparently had some sort of head injury.

I see your point. I would love to know all the details of the Tyson case...because it's hard for me to believe they convicted on a story and some bruises. But, if the ER doc said the bruises appeared to be hand prints...or bruising consistant with a struggle...then yeah I can see how that would be enough. But, a bump to the head is much different. If there is only a bump to the head that could have happened any number of ways. That alone is far from enough. But, bruising on certain parts of body...hands, legs, around the neck is much harder to explain. That's why I maintain that the docs physical is crucial. And if they would have found markings consistant with a struggle...Ben would already be arrested.

IIRC, the brusing the the Tyson case was on her genitals. Her lawyers argued that it was a sign of violent sex. Tyson's lawyers argued that it was common for his lovers to have bruising because of his size.

Shawn

03-19-2010, 10:17 PM

[quote=Shawn]I think that's reasonable. Did she go into the bathroom to have some sort of sexual contact? That is probable. ... The problem? The jury must assume she went in the bathroom to have sexual contact of some sort. She would have a hard time explaining that away. Then she would have to say he took it further than she wished...which is certainly possible. But, proving that is nearly impossible without physical evidence.

To me, this sounds alot like a description of the Tyson case. She went up to his hotel room, clearly with the intent of having sex. Tyson was found guilty, in part because she had brusing on her private parts and that was seen as evidence of rape.

Apparently, the girl in this case went into the bathroom with Ben, clearly intending to have some kind of sexual contact. Later that night, she apparently had some sort of head injury.

I see your point. I would love to know all the details of the Tyson case...because it's hard for me to believe they convicted on a story and some bruises. But, if the ER doc said the bruises appeared to be hand prints...or bruising consistant with a struggle...then yeah I can see how that would be enough. But, a bump to the head is much different. If there is only a bump to the head that could have happened any number of ways. That alone is far from enough. But, bruising on certain parts of body...hands, legs, around the neck is much harder to explain. That's why I maintain that the docs physical is crucial. And if they would have found markings consistant with a struggle...Ben would already be arrested.

IIRC, the brusing the the Tyson case was on her genitals. Her lawyers argued that it was a sign of violent sex. Tyson's lawyers argued that it was common for his lovers to have bruising because of his size.[/quote:2jzy86br]

It certainly means there was some rough sex going on. At the time I didn't believe it. But, after seeing that documentary...and hearing him say he desired to own women sexually...I now believe it.

frankthetank1

03-21-2010, 01:51 PM

After the Duke case a DA would be stupid to rush the case.

It doesn't matter though.. the damage is done and even if the case doesn't go any further people will think Ben paid her off.

I hope this wakes Ben up and he realizes having spontaneous sexual encounters with strangers in public OR in private can land him in a heap of trouble.

the fact that he has to learn that is mind blowing. look at kobe, tyson, tiger or any other huge athlete that has had cases like this. ben isnt all that young any more and he should of known better ever since he was drafted. i really dont think ben is all that bright and this whole thing is an embarrassment to the steelers

Oviedo

03-24-2010, 02:23 PM

After the Duke case a DA would be stupid to rush the case.

It doesn't matter though.. the damage is done and even if the case doesn't go any further people will think Ben paid her off.

I hope this wakes Ben up and he realizes having spontaneous sexual encounters with strangers in public OR in private can land him in a heap of trouble.

You're talking about a guy who won't get rid of a football even though he knows a 300+lb man is going to drive him into the ground. Ben's problem is one of ego and hubris. To get in this situation less than year of being accused in Nevada does not bode well for Ben learning his lessons or displaying even a little common sense.